VeRo accusation used to remove the competition

[arist-international]

I was disappointed to receive a VeRo on a product, but thought an invoice from a brand authorised distributor would resolve the situation. Even after sending in valid documentation and speaking with an agent, the VeRo was upheld.

The saddest thing is that the VeRo stated that the challenger had basically purchased an item and found it to be counterfeit. This was a complete lie as I had not sold a single product, yet eBay refused to look into this it. Basically, the VeRo was used to remove a competitive seller, and eBay allowed it.

[moldosgifts]

Have you checked with the authorised distributor whether they allow ebay sales ? Some don't 

[papso22]

For you to sell it you probably need to be an authorised distributor. 

[arist-international]

Yes. The distributor does not have any issues. 
My concern is that eBay has accepted the VeRo, even though they can see no products have yet been sold.

[therenewalworkshopltd]

If you have not actually sold an item, then the Vero will give you contact details.

You need to contact whoever it is and try to get it sorted out.

Ebay does not look into these cases, it is between the seller and the rights holder.

I would however double check what it actually states in the letter/email.

[arist-international]

Sadly, this is whole reason for the post. eBay should "look into these cases". 

[4_bathrooms]

---

@arist-international wrote:

The saddest thing is that the VeRo stated that the challenger had basically purchased an item and found it to be counterfeit. This was a complete lie as I had not sold a single product, yet eBay refused to look into this it. Basically, the VeRo was used to remove a competitive seller, and eBay allowed it.

---

A VeRO takedown request can only be done by the rights' holder or their authorised representative; eBay certainly don't take someone's word that they are that person. Does it tell you who the complainer is in the VeRO notification you have received? 

Some brand owners do not want their brand(s) sold via eBay at all or only allow them to be sold by sellers they have approved. You're selling cosmetics; this is a category where such intellectual property enforcement is fairly common.

[arist-international]

I have no issue with a brand that does not wish to be sold on eBay. However, this is very different to accusing a seller of offering counterfeit goods. They claim they have purchased the product, and have found it to be counterfeit. This is completely unacceptable, as it is not true. I have not sold a single product.

[4_bathrooms]

---

@arist-international wrote:

I have no issue with a brand that does not wish to be sold on eBay. However, this is very different to accusing a seller of offering counterfeit goods. They claim they have purchased the product, and have found it to be counterfeit. This is completely unacceptable, as it is not true. I have not sold a single product.

---

Your argument is with the rights holder; not eBay. The rights holder has submitted a "Notice of Claimed Infringement" claiming you are selling counterfeit goods, details of their trademark registration along with whatever other claims they have submitted in the NOCI.

You need to contact the rights holder as only they can withdraw their complaint. eBay will not be interested; they have received a takedown notice from a verified rights holder so they aren't going to risk becoming embroiled in a potential legal dispute. eBay will just take the listing down and request documents from the seller to be forwarded on to the (verified) rights holder. The rights holder can then choose whether to withdraw their complaint or not.

[therenewalworkshopltd]

The whole thing about Vero, is that it is NOT between Ebay and the brand holder.

That is exactly why Ebay do not get involved.

If you think about it, it is just a process that Ebay has put in place.

Without it, the brand holders can still take action against you, simply be suing you directly.

Or refusing to supply you and so on.

But Ebay certifies these are the correct people etc and because of that, take their word that what they are saying is true.  It's not an unreasonable stance.

So you need to contact the complainant to get it sorted out.

Ebay is most definitely not the only site that works this way.

Of course errors can be made, but you just need to contact them to sort it out.

[arist-international]

I complete understand and agree with most of the replies. The rights owner should be able to dictate who sells their products and on which platforms.

However, I still feel that if the rights owner claims they have purchased a product on the eBay platform and found it to be counterfeit, eBay should ask they for proof, especially when eBay can see the seller has not sold a single product.

[therenewalworkshopltd]

I do get where your coming from, but you need to step back and look at it from Ebay's point of view and not yours.

They are not going to overrule a rights holders complaint as otherwise, they are likely to get mired in legalities.

They verify them and then as a trusted source, follow the request.

It's not like you don't have any comeback here, you just need to contact the right's holder and get it sorted out.  I've had the odd one over the years and generally, they are pretty easy to sort out.  Though it may take time.

[arist-international]

The right owner has a terrible reputation in the seller community. I only purchased a few products, fortunately, as I was not aware of their reputation. I do not like to be accused of selling counterfeit goods, especially when it is clear the rights hold is dishonest.

Anyway, thanks for all the feedback. 

[mill_and_foundry_co]

Rights owners shouldn't be using VeRO unless their IP has ben infringed, using VeRO simply because they don't want their goods on eBay isn't a valid takedown.

Under the government's UK+ regime, generally, if the goods are placed within the EEA with the rights owner's consent the trademark should be exhausted within the UK. 

If the issue here is a false claim of counterfeit goods, assuming the take down was via the actual rights owner, eBay won't get involved and you have to look to other ways of dealing with the matter which probably doesn't justify the costs sadly. 

[4_bathrooms]

---

@mill_and_foundry_co wrote:

Under the government's UK+ regime, generally, if the goods are placed within the EEA with the rights owner's consent the trademark should be exhausted within the UK. 

---

Do you have a link to that information? The UK and the EEA are separate territories where trademark law is concerned.

[mill_and_foundry_co]

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exhaustion-of-ip-rights-and-parallel-trade

Doesn't work the other way around, in that if placed in the UK market Trademarks aren't exhausted in the EEA. 

[4_bathrooms]

---

@mill_and_foundry_co wrote:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exhaustion-of-ip-rights-and-parallel-trade

Doesn't work the other way around, in that if placed in the UK market Trademarks aren't exhausted in the EEA. 

---

Interesting. Just to be clear to those who are unfamiliar with the concept of exhaustion it doesn't mean the trademark owner has forfeited all their intellectual property rights. It means once the trademark owner - or someone with their permission - has sold a product to a wholesaler (for example) the trademark owner can't prevent the wholesaler from selling that product on to a distributor. In turn, The distributor is free to sell it to a retailer who in turn would be free to sell it to a consumer.

The trademark owner can still take action against infringement of their trademark such as unauthorised use and can forbid their trademarked product from being exported to another territory. That is, unless they placed their product on the EEA market in which case they also exhausted their UK trademark.

There is a caveat to the above, though. Many people will have seen "authorised stockist" indicating the retailer is "authorised" to sell the product. This can be true if there is a warranty involved or the retailer is expected to offer a service with the product; especially where such features are associated with the trademark.  However, I do believe VeRO is abused by brands who just don't want their items sold on eBay and/or brands who want to preserve their exclusivity despite both being legally sketchy things to do. There is a disclaimer covering such misuse at the bottom of the NOCI form indicating that is not what the NOCI is to be used for but such misuse isn't something eBay has any way of policing.